Collectively, immunologists can have their greatest impact through local actions. Visiting schools, hosting laboratory open houses, and communicating with local media can go a long way towards demystifying the process of scientific discovery. The engagement with the public must be tailored to the audience. Being available to our communities will reap benefits over time. Therefore, it is especially important to build these connections when not facing an emergency and create a foundation of trust. We must also recognize that making the complexity of immunology accessible to non-scientists is a special skill that is not typically taught. We should consider collaborating with colleagues with expertise in science communication to incorporate appropriate instruction into our training programs.

During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, I had the opportunity to have a leadership role in our local response. I was fortunate to work for Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, which devoted resources to maximize the health of our community. The institutional leadership believed in evidence-based decisions and worked effectively with local public health officials and healthcare professionals, resulting in a collaborative effort that could swiftly adjust to an evolving situation. Some of the most important lessons we learned through our efforts concerned the importance of communicating complex, changing science to a diverse community.

We identified three basic tenets to our communication plan that were essential for helping the community understand our approach, even as guidance changed with the evolution of the pandemic.

At the start of the pandemic, we, like others, operated in the dark. Countless meetings were spent scrutinizing data to glean whatever we could about the characteristics of the virus and the host response, as well as efficacy of different safety interventions. As we made progress in our deliberations, we reported to the community, using online platforms, through numerous town hall meetings focused on different community groups, and an information/helpline that was open 7 days a week. We were careful to differentiate between what we knew, what we thought we knew, and what we were still learning, pointing the community to resources that we found trustworthy and unbiased. We also made it clear that guidance would change as we learned more about the virus but assured our community that the rationale for changing guidance would always be provided.

It quickly became clear that members of our community were seeking and receiving information in several different ways. We recognized the need to be available when questions arose, so that they could count on us to provide updates on developments. Importantly, no questions were dismissed, and all concerns were addressed equally. Although it is hard to quantify, this availability appeared to reduce reliance on other, perhaps less trustworthy, sources.

As mentioned above, a core component of our communication strategy was to make clear what we knew and what we did not know. This helped to build trust and enabled the community to understand how information and guidance evolved. It was also important to seek feedback to ensure that the information we provided addressed the concerns and needs of our audience.

Although we all hope that it will be a long time before we face the next global pandemic, now is a great opportunity to reflect on how the scientists interfaced with the public as we faced the challenge of COVID-19. There is much for which we can be proud. Even so, hundreds of thousands of individuals needlessly lost their lives due to misinformation and disinformation. Now is the time to develop better strategies for communication between scientists and the public, both to improve the baseline of understanding and to be prepared for the next emergency.